5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Oktyabrskiy, Bashkortostan Republic.
6.  On 10 March 2004 the police opened an investigation against Mikhail Timin, the applicant’s brother, and two other individuals, on charges of extortion. Mr Timin was arrested on the same day and taken to the temporary detention centre of a police station.
7.  On 11 March 2004 at 7.25 a.m. Mr Timin complained of headaches and cramps in his legs, allegedly resulting from ten days’ drinking. Paramedic A., who had been called by the administration, examined Mr Timin and diagnosed him with alcohol intoxication. She also advised that he be taken to hospital for inpatient treatment. It appears that there was some delay in his transfer to hospital pending the arrival of the convoy officers who would take him. He was taken to a rehabilitation clinic at 10.15 a.m. Doctor Kh. examined and diagnosed him with alcohol withdrawal syndrome and seizures and he was administered treatment. The doctor found him fit for detention and he was discharged from the clinic. He was then taken back to the temporary detention centre.
8.  At the temporary detention centre Mr Timin did not feel well and the guards once again summoned an emergency response team, which arrived at 3.24 p.m. Paramedics I. and Z. examined and diagnosed him with alcohol intoxication. They recommended that he be given inpatient treatment. The administration of the temporary detention centre did not take him to the clinic, as they had failed to provide a convoy.
9.  On 12 March 2004 the Oktyabrskiy Town Court of the Bashkortostan Republic (hereinafter “the Town Court”) authorised Mr Timin’s detention pending investigation. He attended the hearing at court. According to investigator Kam., who asked for him to be remanded in custody, he had not complained of any health issues either at the time of his arrest on 10 March 2004 or at the hearing on 12 March 2004.
10.  Upon his return to the temporary detention centre, Mr Timin was placed in cell no. 3 together with E., S. and Sh. The inmates complained repeatedly to the guards about his aggressive behaviour (he assaulted Sh.) and asked the guards to transfer him to another cell. At 8.45 p.m. he was transferred to cell no. 10, where he was detained in isolation. He did not calm down and continued shouting, swearing and banging on the door.
11.  On 13 March 2004 at 6.25 a.m. one of the guards heard some noise coming from cell no. 10 and looked through the peephole. He saw Mr Timin lying on the floor. The guard entered the cell, checked for a pulse but there was none. When the emergency response doctor summoned by the guards arrived, Mr Timin was pronounced dead.
12.  On 13 March 2004 the police carried out an inquiry into the circumstances of Mr Timin’s death and concluded that the guards had failed to properly carry out surveillance over him. The relevant report was then forwarded to the prosecutor’s office, which commissioned a forensic examination to establish the cause of his death.
13.  On 16 March 2004 the prosecutor’s office refused to open a criminal investigation into the death. Investigator A. indicated that Mr Timin had died as a result of acute coronary insufficiency exacerbated by alcohol withdrawal syndrome.
14.  On the same date the head of the town department of the interior found that the chief of police, his deputy and the police officers on duty at the time of Mr Timin’s death had failed to carry out their duties properly, in particular, they had failed to monitor the detainees closely. The officers were subjected to a disciplinary sanction (a reprimand).
15.  A forensic examination of Mr Timin’s body was completed on 7 April 2004. The findings of the examination were presented in forensic report no. 89. The expert noted numerous bruises and abrasions on the body which, in his opinion, were not fatal. His conclusion was that Mr Timin had died of acute coronary insufficiency exacerbated by alcohol withdrawal syndrome.
16.  On 21 July 2004 the town prosecutor quashed the investigator’s decision of 16 March 2004 and remitted the matter for a further inquiry. In particular, he noted:
“[The decision of 16 March 2004] is premature, unlawful and ill-founded ...
According to the forensic medical examination report, [the expert] noted numerous injuries on Mr Timin’s body (fourteen bruises and injuries). However, this fact was not considered in the course of the inquiry. [The investigator] failed to establish under what circumstances Mr Timin had sustained the injuries. In the course of the additional investigation it will be necessary to re-examine the [forensic] documents and to put [further] questions to the forensic expert ...
It follows from the logbook records of the temporary detention unit that [Mr Timin] was in need of urgent inpatient treatment. However, owing to the absence of the convoy officers, he was left in the temporary detention centre. In this connection, it is necessary to question the staff [there].”
17.  On 25 July 2004 investigator V. commissioned an additional forensic expert examination to clarify the cause of the injuries on Mr Timin’s body.
18.  On 31 July 2004 investigator V. refused to open a criminal investigation and reiterated the findings of the previous inquiry.
19.  On 14 September 2004 the additional forensic examination was completed. According to report no. 65, the injuries on Mr Timin’s body had:
“... resulted from the impact of blunt solid objects, or a collision with them. It cannot be ruled out that the ... injuries on the rear of the body could have resulted from [Mr Timin] falling on his back ... He could have caused the injuries on the front of the body himself. [The injuries] occurred within a short time of one another. It is not possible to determine the order of their appearance.”
20.  On 20 September 2004 the acting town prosecutor quashed the decision of 31 July 2004, noting that it had been taken prematurely before the additional forensic examination was completed.
21.  On 21 September 2004 investigator V. yet again refused to open criminal investigation, reiterating that Mr Timin had died from acute coronary insufficiency exacerbated by alcohol withdrawal syndrome. As regards the injuries, the investigator considered that they might have been self-inflicted, given that Mr Timin had thrown himself against the door of the cell and had had an altercation with other inmates. The investigator questioned the guards, who denied that they had beaten Mr Timin, and G., one of the detainees, who claimed that he had seen through his peephole five or six policemen enter Mr Timin’s cell at around 2 or 3 a.m. The investigator rejected G.’s testimony, noting that it would have been impossible to see the door of Mr Timin’s cell through the peephole of G.’s cell.
22.  On 31 March 2005 the Town Court found the decision of 21 September 2004 unlawful. The court stated that the investigator had failed to question the medical practitioners who had treated Mr Timin on the day preceding his death. In compliance with the court’s decision of 31 March 2005, on 16 May 2005 the town prosecutor quashed the decision of 21 September 2004 and ordered a further inquiry.
23.  On 21 May 2005 investigator V. again refused to open a criminal investigation into Mr Timin’s death. On 13 October 2005 the Town Court found the decision unlawful, noting that the investigator had failed to (i) question the medical practitioners who had treated Mr Timin; (ii) identify the staff of the temporary detention centre who had been present when he had been examined by the medical practitioners, in order to elucidate why he had not been transferred to a medical facility in contravention of the emergency response team’s recommendation; and (iii) identify the alleged perpetrators. On 8 November 2005 the acting town prosecutor quashed the decision of 21 May 2005 and ordered a further inquiry into the matter.
24.  On 11 November 2005 investigator V. refused to open a criminal investigation, reiterating his previous findings practically verbatim. The town prosecutor quashed the decision on 30 November 2005, and on 7 December 2005 ordered a further inquiry and transferred the case to investigator M. It was noted that investigator V. had failed to identify and question various witnesses, including the detainees and medical practitioners.
25.  On 17 December 2005 investigator M. refused to open a criminal investigation. On 15 June 2006 the Town Court quashed the decision because he had failed to notify the applicant of it.
26.  It appears that the applicant subsequently lodged several complaints requesting a criminal investigation into the circumstances of her brother’s death. The complaints were dismissed on 26 July and 28 September 2007, but these decisions were quashed by the regional investigative committee on 19 October 2007 because the investigator’s inquiry had been incomplete. In particular, it was noted that the investigator had failed to question the medical practitioners who had examined and treated Mr Timin on 11 March 2004.
27.  On 28 October 2007 investigator F. refused to open a criminal investigation, reiterating his predecessors’ findings concerning the causes of Mr Timin’s death. The superior investigator quashed the decision on 5 December 2007, noting yet again that the medical practitioners who had treated Mr Timin on the day before he died had not been questioned.
28.  On 15 December 2007 investigator F. again refused to open a criminal investigation into Mr Timin’s death. His decision was quashed by the regional investigative committee on 10 December 2008. In particular, it was noted that on 11 March 2004, following the recommendations of the medical practitioners who had examined Mr Timin, it had been incumbent on the temporary detention unit to take him to hospital for further treatment. It was further noted that the inquiry conducted by investigator F. had failed to establish the reasons as to why Mr Timin had not been taken to hospital, in contravention of the recommendations of the medical practitioners. Nor had the medical practitioners been questioned.
29.  On 11 February 2008 the Ministry of Health of the Bashkortostan Republic completed an inquiry into the circumstances of Mr Timin’s death. Their findings were summarised in a report:
“1.  Regard being had to the dynamics and clinical picture of [Mr Timin’s] condition and objective data, it can be concluded that [he] developed alcohol withdrawal syndrome with seizures. Treatment was prescribed in accordance with his condition and was aimed at managing the symptoms. 2.  The rehabilitation clinic ... acted in compliance with [applicable legislation] which provides that, as a rule, psychiatric treatment is administered voluntarily, upon the request and approval of a patient.
Mr Timin did not have a history of alcohol-related [illness]. At the time, he was not psychotic and could understand his actions and control them. There were no grounds for [his] involuntary admission to hospital ... Mr Timin’s condition, when he was released from the rehabilitation clinic and transferred back to the temporary detention centre, was satisfactory. As regards the period from 10.50 a.m. on 11 March to 13 March 2004, there is no information showing that [his] condition deteriorated.”
30.  On 26 December 2008 investigator R. refused to open criminal proceedings into Mr Timin’s death. He based his findings on forensic reports, medical documentation and witness statements, including those made by the inmates, guards and medical practitioners.
31.  On 28 August 2009 the Town Court dismissed a complaint by the applicant alleging that the investigator’s decision of 26 December 2008 was unlawful. On 22 October 2009 the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic upheld the decision on appeal.
32.  On 14 September 2011 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic quashed the decisions of 28 August and 22 October 2009 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The court noted, inter alia, as follows:
“... in the course of the inquiries [the investigators] failed to duly take into consideration the fact that on 11 March 2004 at 3.24 p.m., following the second examination of Mr Timin, the medical practitioners considered that he should urgently consult the drugs counsellor. However, he was not allowed to do so. This was confirmed by emergency response doctors Z. and I., who diagnosed Mr Timin with alcoholic intoxication with epileptic seizures. They recommended that he be taken to hospital, but the administration of the temporary detention centre refused to do so. [The investigators] did not consider why the administration ... had not complied with the doctors’ recommendation to take Mr Timin to the rehabilitation clinic ...
It follows from the material of the inquiry that Mr Timin did not receive timely or thorough medical assistance; the doctors did not diagnose him correctly, because the administration of the temporary detention centre did not provide the necessary information about [his] behaviour and health condition. This point should have been verified and assessed.”
33.  On 3 November 2011 the Town Court found the investigator’s decision of 26 December 2008 unlawful and quashed it.
34.  On 13 December 2011 investigator N. of the investigative committee refused to open a criminal investigation into Mr Timin’s death, concluding that he had died of ischemic heart disease and coronary insufficiency. He discerned no corpus delicti in the actions of the administration of the temporary detention centre or the medical practitioners who had treated him. In his report, he relied on the forensic medical documents, statements made by the police officers from the temporary detention centre and the paramedics who had treated him.
35.  On 29 February 2012 senior investigator Akh. of the investigative committee opened a criminal investigation on charges of abuse of power. He noted, in particular, as follows:
“From 11.50 p.m. on 10 March 2004 to 6.25 a.m. on 13 March 2004 unidentified police officers at [the temporary detention centre] caused Mr Timin the following injuries: two elongated bruises on the right temple, a bruise on the left of the chest ... , a bruise on the outside left shoulder ... , a bruise on the rear left elbow ... , a bruise on the rear left shoulder ... , a bruise on the back of the left hand ... , a bruise on the rear right shoulder ... , five abrasions on the rear right elbow ... , bruises on the second and third fingers of the right hand, a bruise on the right knee ... , a bruise on the right lower leg ... , a bruise on the left lower leg... The injuries ... can be classified as light health damage.”
36.  It appears that this investigation is still pending.